Thursday Open Thread
House Republicans met with Bush to discuss how the Iraq War is harming the GOP and how their patience is limited.
A terror plot to attack Fort Dix was foiled (slightly old news, but not discussed).
Most interestingly, our own Purpleface conducted a thoughtful gender experiment on this site. Who knew?
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Specter on Thu, 2007-05-10 08:32
Tags:
Comments :
I see
Blair is quitting on June 27th
. I salute one of our most steadfast allies and hope for a good succession to another intelligent and reasonable pro-American leader.
Hopefully Sarcozy will not disappoint us in France. The fact that Sarcozy is meeting with Blair as his first order of foreign policy business is encouraging since the tradition for the last few decades has been to meet with the German Chancellor first. A pro-Britain and a pro-US bent for the French would definitely ease our relations with Europe.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Afghanistan going to hell too
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=9ad59147-d9ad-4...
Combined with the Iraqi parliament voting for us to withdraw our missions to bring democracy seem to be at odds with out "war" on terror.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I saw that this morning.
I think they should be talking to the Taliban. One problem everyone has with "extremist groups" (an eye of the beholder) is when they take the position that there is no other position but their own. The Taliban takes that position. Hezbollah has taken that position. Almost every religion has taken that position in one form or another over the years. Hell, George Bush is taking that position right now wrt Iraq's war funding.
That may be a statement orthodox groups make in this world. Talking to them will include telling them that that is an unacceptable position to put on everyone else. But they should still talk.
We should talk to Iran. We should talk to Syria. We should talk to Hamas. We should talk to Abu Gonzalez....in fact a House committee is going to talk to him this morning.
hehe
you had to stick Abu in there :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I disagree regarding the Taliban
The Taliban is the enemy. They allied themselves and gave sanctuary to the people who attacked the United States. Our goal should be to destroy the Taliban and to ensure that Afghanistan does not once again dissolve into chaos.
We have been unable to do that thus far because we are pursuing an insane policy in Iraq that is devouring our military and our treasury. It is past time to punt on Iraq and refocus on defeating the people who actually attacked us.
Let's get the hell out of Iraq and send another 40,000 or 50,000 troops to Afghanistan and finish off Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the rest of the merry band of 13th century throwbacks.
qui tacet consentire
I agree
we should wipe Taliban off the face of the Earth... In both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So ignorant.
Why we haven't redeployed our troops out of the black hole of Iraq and into Afganistan is insantiy squared......!
It's rather frightening to think we would wait til '09. The longer we wait the deeper the hole we have to fill in.
Except for the "true believers" the faces of the GOP betray that they know our foreign policy ship is sinking and along with it our standing in the world.
It doesn't help that Bush still has full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz.
It is the economy, stupid.
For all the
conservative whining about the liberal bias in our education system, one would
think that at least the GOP would have gotten better grades in geography.
Osama bin Laden is not an Iraqi!
Is the Iraq War harming the GOP? The question is mildly insane after all this time, as if politics, and nothing else, is their MAIN concern.
Never mind if the Iraq War is weakening our military, or our standing in the world. The big question is does it hurt the GOP.
It is the economy, stupid.
politics is the main concern
of all the politicians in Washington DC, whether they are Republican or Democratic it is all the same. Dems are worried about the proper framing of the bills for withdrawing from Iraq because the polls are different depending on what you propose (cut the funds vs timetable for withdrawal). It's all about politics.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What about the actual Iraqi's?
They want us to go. Don't they have any say in it?
technically yes
realistically it is our decision.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes I know
The White House has been turned into a GOP political action center (otherwise known as Rove's shop) rivaling if not surpassing the efforts of Richard Nixon.
And what no one wants to talk about, is the use of Regent University as the mainstay for filling in civil service positions.
That IS what the Attorney General scandal is ALL about, not serving the people but serving the White House, surpressing the democratic vote, surpressing investigations into people that Jack Abramoff helped, and it frightens even some loyal Republicans.
The fear by the Republican moderates that met with the President yesterday is that this will stain their party permanently.
We will just have to wait and see how much the White House is able to cover up.
So I think in this case it goes a little beyond just politics.
It is the economy, stupid.
Biggest news of the day
is that Dale Earnhardt Jr. is leaving DEI.
Forget about all that Iraq and Gonzales nonsense. Is Dale Jr. going to Hendrick or RCR?
In other news, Pope Benny says pro-choice Catholic lawmakers should be excommunicated. Rudy Giuliani, who was in Alabama yesterday, refused comment.
I did a DKos diary
on it yesterday.
qui tacet consentire
NPR said he was going to start his own.
That takes more money than I have, but Dale might be able to dig it up.
He already has his own team
It's called JR Motorsports. he fields a car in the Busch Series driven by Shane Huffman. But he doesn't have a Nextel Cup team -- and that would take a ton of cash. He'd have to lease engines from either RCR or Hendrick.
He said this morning that his first choice is to sign with a top-flight team -- like Hendrick or RCR or Joe Gibbs.
It should get interesting. Junior will easily become the most sought-after free agent in sports history.
qui tacet consentire
Interesting, what that may
or may not do to Catholic politics in the United States. I have a feeling the American Catholic clergy here may not stand for it, or at least may downplay it as much as possible.
Catholics have an interesting role in our public life. They're the largest single sect in the country, but not large enough to overwhelm the combined political power of Protestant sects. We've only had one Catholic president in this country's history, and that was a Democrat. The almost-second one was also a Democrat.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
A true southern Democrat! :-)
Focus on the really important stuff!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Gonzales testimony today.
I started in on this above, and didn't want to muddy the waters. Alberto gets to talk to a House Committee today. Again, they are going to ask him about the firings.
Let's be clear with each other, eh? The AG serves both the President and the American people. He's expected to be political, but he's expected to be impartial too. Alberto has not been impartial. The US Attorneys hired also serve the President, but are expected to be even more impartial than the AG and exercise independence and nonpartisan. The track record is clear that Alberto, has done everything he can to make those posts partisan. The career staff hired by the individual US Attorneys are all supposed to be impartial, and nonpartisan....period. None of us want a prosecutorial staff that has it's deck stacked in any way (hopefully none of us). It's clear that the track record shows that this administration has gone out of it's way to boot career people they didn't feel were team players and hire only republicans.
By that alone, Alberto should resign. If he refuses to resign, he should be fired by dubya. If dubya refuses to fire him, Alberto should be impeached.
It's clear he won't resign, and it's clear he won't be fired by this administration. The only remaining alternative is to impeach Alberto for derelection of his duties and lying to the American people. I've come to believe that this is the only real avenue left to bring back our government to a responsible and respected institution.
Impeach Gonzales. That is a good starting point letting this Administration know that they are not above the law, and are not above the American people, but (ironically) that this Administration serves at THE PLEASURE of the American people. Right now, we are not pleased.
ps - I removed the Abu's for you Ender.
heh I don't care much about that
but you do want to impeach a lot of people in general. It is unrealistic... What is realistic though is GOP senators telling Bush that Alberto sucks and needs to go.
Let's wait and see what happens in the hearings. If enough republicans are riled up, Gonzalez will be gone soon.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That'd be good advice.
I suspect that this Administration doesn't like being told what to do by anyone. Repub or Dem. So I'm not sure that waiting will do anything. Which is why I've moved over to a more proactive stance of impeachment. But you do bring a good point up. We'll see.
Personally, I don't think the leadership in the House or the Senate wants to deal with any impeachment proceedings. So who knows?
Talking Points Memo
has had the best AG firings coverage of any of the progressive blogs.
Justice
Justice is NOT being served. It is not accident that Gonzales still has the full confidence of the President.
It is the economy, stupid.
I wouldn't hold my breath
waiting for Republicans in Congress to stand up to Bush.
They're all talk and no action.
qui tacet consentire
Why are they such wussies?
It is the economy, stupid.
I hope Bush thumbs his nose at these
Democrat inquiries. Actually, I would prefer it if he did a reasonable impression of the Scotts in Braveheart (just before the battle).
:-)
Stand your ground, George!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Something is not working in New Jersey
From the MSNBC link on the Fort Dix arrests:
Why are these types of scofflaws able to get away with this? I think the NJ lawmakers have some work to do; there should be some penalty for blatant disregard of the law.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Good lord
I have a novel idea: after the first dozen or so offenses, maybe it would make sense to impound or disable the car. Since they aren't allowed to drive, they shouldn't need it, right? If they aren't the owner, charge the owner for letting them use it. Allowing people without licenses to drive, and drive recklessly at that, is endangering public safety. And I don't wanna hear anything about the law doesn't allow that, either -- if we're moving towards a fascist state, I want my excessive proposals catered to along with all this boring wiretapping stuff!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What is missing from the report
is whether or not all their tickets were paid. I would hazard a guess that they were probably not.
Heck with impounding the car; they'd just buy another. Impound the person. A few weeks in the county jail for each offense might change their attitude. Since living in this country illegally seems to not be a real crime these days.
I wonder if he's paid the required taxes for his roofing business?
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
that is pretty ridiculous...
How on earth were the able to continue with so many offenses... NJ State Police has a lot to answer for.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What difference does it make
what laws are on the books in NJ? The liberal courts there just ignore them anyway. Case in point is letting Lautenberg on the ballot when he had missed the filing deadlines. As you may recall, the Democrats wanted him on the ticket (in violation of the law as written at the time) once it became obvious that their current guy was going down hard.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oh, and I almost forgot.
<snark>
Stop oppressing those poor illegal immigrants, you racist. Don't you know that they are just here to do work that Americans don't want to do ... like killing soldiers in Fort Dix?
</snark>
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My views on immigration
Probably match yours more closely than you think. Unfortunately your guy in the White House believes in amnesty and modern-day slave labor, and conveniently forgot to ensure that employers violating the law were prosecuted until the public raised a ruckus. And he refuses to pardon the two Texas border patrol agents whose trial was smokey enough to warrant further investigation by the feds.
Quit hiding behind the Democrats skirts on this one. The Republicans own this problem too.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Cool.
I agree with all of this.
BTW, my snark was more of a general denunciation of the obvious liberal talking points than at you specifically.
Gee, we're both INTJs, we agree on immigration, who knows what might happen if only we were both single! :-)
(Oh, stop retching ... it's rude.)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
this is a prime example
of the difference after purpleface revealed her identity :) I think I am INTJ too.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Unlike our Attorney General
my memory is good. You were something else. Only knocienz, I believe, came up as an INTJ.
Site search says ISTJ but you weren't too comfy with that.
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/596#comment-29535
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
thanks for finding that
I'd modify what I said there from "plenty of truth" to "some truth"... Yeah I knew it was I-something :)
I don't want to fit some half-baked prepackaged stereotype either.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You don't :} (nt)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Took the test..
I'm an ENTJ. (Usually).
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Gingrich, Gore
Margaret Thatcher, FDR, and Charles J
Not too bad a group! Maybe you should plan on running for office someday.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Notwithstanding our country's inability or will
to enforce the immigration laws, we are again presented with radical islamists living in the USA. The planned attack on Fort Dix IMO is another example of why we have to legally prevent jihadists and those who want to establish sharia law from entering the country. Further, those jihadists who are already here and are not already citizens should be legally deported as a matter of policy.
name the enemy, win the war
Gonzales is on CSpan dot org
And boy is he bumfoozled. I doubt he can recall what he had for breakfast this morning. That act, if it's an act, is wearing thin. One would assume that he could have brought a list of key points in his prior testimonies so at least he doesn't contradict what he said before. "Let me check my notes on that. . . yes sir that is what I said" would sound a lot more professional than "Yes uh no uh well what I said was uh"
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
does he recall
becoming AG?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Uh well yes uh I mean no uh well what really happened was
some guy in a suit invited me to his garden party and um there was this stand thing with uh microphones and uh other guests with cameras and such uh but you'll have to ask him about that . . . .
He's in over his head. It's not pleasant watching someone who can't think on his feet try to answer direct questions. Now they're running Tony Snow's press gaggle and say what you will about him, he can indeed think on his feet.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
when I feel too much embarrassment
about anyone either answering questions or giving a speech I can't stand it and turn it off. Watching someone who can't think on his feet answering questions would be painful indeed.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
"I asked the Deputy Attorney General"
They're replaying the beginning, and in reading his prepared opening remarks he says that he asked his Deputy Attorney General if his (Gonzales's) decision on the firing was appropriate. In other words, he had to ask his staff if he did OK (!)
He also seems to be saying something to the effect that knowing what he knows now, he thinks that maybe he might have made a different decision on the firings.
Nice to know he takes his job so seriously. What are we paying for this incompetent, anyway? Big salary, company car, health care for life and a nice pension?
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
seems like he comes from a fine tradition
of hekuva job Brownies...
I really don't understand why Bush is defending him... What the hell.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You people are making mountains out of mole holes.
As usual.
The US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. He can fire then at any time and for any (lawful) reason.
That's all he needs to say, and all you need to know.
The rest is just a fishing expedition.
What good executive does not seek out and heed the advice of his subordinates and advisors?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You don't have the slightest grasp
of the situation in anyway shape or form.
Trying to explain it to you so you could understand would take about 2,000,000 words, and you still wouldn't be convinced.
It is the economy, stupid.
ON the plus side,
you make an excellent conversationalist, albiet, wordy.
Look at all the replies you've generated!
It is the economy, stupid.
:-)
Yea, I'm pretty decent at "sparking" debate.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why on earth would you be mad at
Democrats???
Republicans had all three branches for six years!
If you were going to be mad at anybody, you should be mad at Republicans.
You hold democrats accountable for republican failures.....!!!
It is the economy, stupid.
No, I'm mad at them too! :-)
There's plenty to go around. I just don't show it as much with the Republicans.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
There you go with the broad brush again
I'm not disputing the validity or invalidity of the proceedings. I'm no lawyer and this seems to be a situation where a fine understanding of the law is required to determine what actual crime, if any, has occured. Maybe somebody else will want to debate that with you.
It is obvious to me from his testimonies, however, that the AG does not understand the basics of management and has let the functions of his department get out of control. Firings are not being handled professionally, emails are not being properly handled, lines of communication between separate entities have burgeoned to unmanagable proportions, some staff is in open revolt, etc. He cannot even prepare simple reference notes for his hearings. While he may be a competent lawyer on his own merits, he has not demonstrated the management/executive skills needed to be, in effect, the CEO of the Justice Department.
Now I admit I've never been a CEO, but I have held several upper management jobs including an unpleasant stint over a department of 250+ people. I've known good managers who were good communicators and good managers who were poor communicators. Based on his testimony as to what's been going on in the Justice Department, he's not qualified to manage such a vast department. IMHO.
Edit: I take that back. I am currently the CEO of our own little enterprise. But the office is crap and there's no company car. It's not the same thing.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
This may all be true.
I don't want to argue the specific points, but even if this IS all true it doesn't change the fact that:
The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them at any time and for any (lawful) reason.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sort of.
You run into a paradox with this: a U.S. Attorney is required by law to be nonpolitical. Can the President hold a U.S. Attorney to a standard legally incompatible with that Attorney's job?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
If we are to accept Bill Clinton's and Janet Reno's
assertion that these types of firings are standard practice, then, well, they are standard practice. As such all of these guys know that they are prepetually on the chopping block. As long as the on-going investigations are completed by competent attorneys who faithfully execute the duties of their office in a non-political way, justice will be served.
A prime example
, Rostenkowski still went to jail even though Clinton fired the primary investigator, Jay Stephens (who, along with the other 92 fired Attorneys, was expected to clear out his office within 10 days).
From the article cited above:
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
GoRight, you supported President Clinton's impeachment,
right? And you supported it not because President Clinton had consentual adultery, but because he lied about it. That's correct too right?
What we have here with the US Attorney situations is a case where multiple persons withing the Executive Branch have lied to Congress on multiple occasions. Several folk lied that President Bush nor Karl Rove were involved in orchestrating
the US Attorneys firing/resignations. TPM has a good lowdown of it that you could understand quite easily 
.
Since you are such an honorable and upright individual, we all expect you to be at the forefront of demanding these individuals resignations. And if they don't offer to resign, you will of course, demand that the President unplesurably fires them. Right?!?
Good. Now we're all on the same page.
btw - the President serves at the pleasure and consent of those governed. right now he's riding a 33% pleasure rating.
You guys are sort of funny.
You simply declare things to be a "lie" and everyone is supposed to just accept that ... regardless of the facts.
Here you present "evidence" that the White House and the Justice Department are "withholding information" while at the same time reporting "what the supposedly withheld information contains". That's a good trick. If you (and your liberal media buddies) are going to make up stories about what is in these supposed materials at least have the decency to wait until they are released. It looks bad otherwise.
So impeach him, if you can. That's the proper way to deal with your complaint. Personally, I'm part of the 33% so what incentive do I have to push for it?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
hmm
If you (and your liberal media buddies) are going to make up stories about what is in these supposed materials at least have the decency to wait until they are released. It looks bad otherwise.
Right, because they were just about to be released. A minor clerical oversight, presumably.
This isn't speculation on the content of the non-released docs -- they were leaked to NR and are described here
. The motivation appears to be either (1) somebody has had it with the stonewalling or (2) somebody thinks this will quickly sink Gonzales (who is becoming a liability) while letting the WH walk away.
Can I get a "Clinton did it too!" please? =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
That was the article I actually read.
And thus was referring to.
Leaked by whom? I lend no credence what so ever to anonymous sources. All of this "according to unnamed sources" crap has got to go. Either give the name of your source, or your article is nothing more than gossip.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Unrelated but relevant
unnamed sources Emmitt Terrell's best ally.
Yet you have no problem believing what you want to believe there.
It is the economy, stupid.
I've learned from the best! :-) n/t
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Don't think this makes sense
Are you suggesting NR manufactured all those emails? Fabricated the contents and attributed it to a fictional source?
If the documents are real, then the name of the source is of secondary relevance at best. If you're suggesting they aren't real, then I think that's a pretty paranoid position to take.
But hey, I imagine we'll find out soon enough. Now that NR has published the contents, there's no reason not to release the emails. If the DoJ makes a convincing case that the NR article is bogus I'll buy you a beer =)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I have no idea who the source is.
Given this, how can I possible assess the credibility of the contents provided? I don't know if they were manufactured or not, do you? And that is the point, we still don't know.
I'll stick with the official documents. I don't want to come out as the next Dan Rather, now, do I? Yea, we were being paranoid there too.
:-)
Edit:
Besides, this is all moot to me. As far as I am concerned these are at risk positions so it doesn't matter if Bush himself was reviewing their files to make the recommendations. As long as any on-going investigations are completed by competent attorneys in a non-partisan manner, justice will be served. The in-coming attorneys will have the same duty to be non-partisan as their predecessors did.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
so close and yet so far
Very true, which is why his apparent attaempts to fire them to influence a number of pending cases is rather important- that's illegal. It's Obstruction of Justice. And it appears to have come right down from Rove.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Balderdash.
The US Attorneys were not fired to interfere with ongoing investigations into Republicans any more that the 93 US Attorneys Clinton fired were axed to interfere with the investigations into Rostenkowski.
Any on-going investigations will be completed by perfectly qualified attorneys, as they were in Clinton's case.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Balderdash, right back at ya.
Clinton fired them all and started over. Maybe that was wrong of him, but you can't exactly accuse him of having gone through attorneys' records to decide who'd been loyal to which party, and make decisions from there. Do you have any evidence to connect the clean sweep to his own legal problems, or are you just assuming that it must have been done for nefarious reasons?
But you do have targeted attorneys in this case, and at least one who'd been specifically warned about the reasons he was targeted: he was supposed to arrange the docket to influence the election.
But it gets even better. You know why Clinton fired them all? Because they didn't offer their resignations, which is what usually happens at the start of a new administration:
Happened under Carter
Happened under Reagan
Happened under W. Bush
Greenwald has an excellent comment
on that last fact:
Bingo. No one complained about Bush getting the resignation of U.S.Attorneys at the beginning of his term, because that's expected. What is NOT expected is the firing of attorneys mid-term because they failed to support the party line.
So I reassert my original claim: the problem comes when the President is holding his Attorneys to a job standard that is illegal for them to pursue.
What say you?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
See above.
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1195#comment-50167
The distinction between Clinton and his predecessors is that Clinton gave them 10 days to vacate their offices whereas his predecessors only replaced them as their terms expired.
Even so, this historical precedent is not binding, as Clinton demonstrated.
If I wanted to be a real piss ant about this, I would start pushing the meme that the Democrats are only making all this noise (as a distraction) because some of the prosecutors were fired because they were refusing to investigate/prosecute allegations of voter fraud ... something that the Democrats would obviously want to cover up since it plays such a key role in their election practices.
But I won't. :-)
Edit:
As for whether Clinton's firings were politically motivated or not, they certainly worked out well for him in terms of keeping Rostenkowski in office as long as possible AND avoiding White Water indictments in Little Rock. It was just a coincidence, I am sure.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
If you wanted to be a real pissant,
you could, but you'd also have to note that the noise came not from the Democrats, but from the Attorneys themselves.
What's more, though we can criticize Clinton - as I noted above - we can't really say the firings were political, nor did he establish any kind of unofficial litmus test for new appointees. The pattern of mid-term firings under Bush is also a warning to the rest of them.
Clinton also had another thing Bush does not: Congressional approval of the new appointees.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Clinton established that the historical
precendents are not binding. Having let that Genie out of her bottle, you can't put her back.
The US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and can be fired for any (lawful) reason.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
You repeat that a lot. Doesn't make the argument any stronger.
Clinton replaced his attorneys at the beginning of their terms, not in the middle. Clinton wasn't the first one in modern history to do it.
The US Attorneys fired or forced to resign did indeed investigate "voter fraud" allegations and found them to be on par with Sadam getting uranium from Niger fabrications. The Attorneys who were on the list but saved (Wisconson) quickly brought charges against Democrats just before an election. Those convictions have since been tossed out by a higher court.
That's exactly why this is a big deal. What the Administration was doing was rigging elections, or trying to. All the problems were in swing states. We don't object to conservative US Attorneys during bush43's reign, we object and are making noise because they were trying to skew the whole system. They were doing things that are against the law.
It's no paradox at all really. It is but it isn't. Those that complained most loudly about the "rule of law" during Clinton's inquisition deny it with bush43 now. Those that thought Clinton's charges where overblown for partisan reasons now are paying much more vigor to the "rule of law" argument. Liberals are accused now of screaming bloody murder as payback for what happened to Clinton.
It's not true. Clinton lied about sex with a woman other than his wife. dubya, darth, Colin, Karl, Ashcroft, Condi, Rummy....they all lied about Sadam. They all lied about Al Queda being in Iraq. They all lied about Sadam getting Uranium. And they KNEW they were lying too!!! How many boys have been killed because of these lies? How many were killed by Clinton's? Compare those two for a moment.
It's all about honesty and integrity. Your word is your bond. You actually try to carry out your promises. bushco, they all lied...about so many things. It's not the same at all. And now we see they even tried to stack the deck. No...we're screaming bloody murder because we're sick of it. We don't understand how some folks refuse to see the danger in an administration that has a great disregard with the law where they're concerned and have frequently expressed wishes that seem somewhat undemocratic to many of us. Even dangerously close to a lil bit of a dictatorial state. dubya isn't my Commander in Chief. He's my President. I'm a civilian and this is still a great country. Because the truth's a comin'. No place to hide.
I will let you have the last substantive post.
I have only two comments.
1) They did not lie about Iraq.
2) The courts have upheld everything that they have done.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The very fact that G. W. Bush's OWN party is raising such strong
reservations and questions about our war in Iraq really does indicate something: That we should get out of Iraq....now, before more damage to our society, Iraq and the world at large is done.
I doubt
any serious damage to our society or the world is really possible here, but the extremely poor state of the Iraq situation is troubling and can no longer be ignored with the same platitudes for the last 4 years.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR